Political Climate
Feb 20, 2018
Electricity Consumers File New Study in Their Call for EPA to Reopen its Endangerment Finding

Generally speaking, the scientific community has been highly politicized and young people are being indoctrinated by way of their schooling at all levels. Bad science is now the rule in our universities and professional societies (see the latest special edition by Jeff Rosenfeld, long the editor and gatekeeper of BAMS which includes easily refuted ‘junk science’.  Climate Alarmists, with the all too willing help from the mainstream media, play ambulance chasers making wild claims that every weather event of significance is the result of our human use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, our teams have shown that we can explain all the changes in global temperatures with natural factors, and that we can equally use the natural factors to successfully forecast upcoming seasons - something which the dynamical CO2-driven models have shown they are incapable of reliably doing.

How bad is this situation? The abomination called the NCA report, led by UCS environmental ‘scientist’ lightweights, even claims it is now possible to find human attribution without detection. In other words, even when nothing really unusual seems to be happening, human influence is there! Like Senator Stabenow of Michigan who says she senses global warming and climate change every time she flies - in an airplane we hope!

Unfortunately, climate alarmism is embedded in the deep state mentality. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Republican from Indiana in written testimony very recently warned of the potential for “abrupt climate change,” Coats’ testimony said the past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization. He also asserted, based on intelligence information, that climatic changes could result in far-reaching global disruption.  Not to be outgunned, a new report by the allegedly non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) addressing “evolving assessments” of human’s contribution to climate change concludes that there now is high confidence that human influence is the dominant cause, issuing a rebuke to climate skeptics in Congress and in the Trump administration.

The reason so many of the scientists who have worked for years in their specialty areas to understand how and why weather and climate cycles happen are so concerned about this climate alarmism is because we can explain using rigorous scientific methods all of the changes in temperature and weather w/o GHGs. We see data being manipulated to fit theory instead of applying the scientific method and rethinking theory when data shows it is wrong

That is why the group of specialists cited in the Press Release below was formed and all of the time and effort provided PRO BONO by scientists and lawyers. Our work demonstrates that President Trump’s initial instincts were correct. This has been a cruel hoax. However, as Paul Driessen writes here “With trillions of dollars in research money, power, prestige, renewable energy subsidies, wealth redistribution schemes, and dreams of international governance on the line, the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex is not taking the situation lightly. Climate fear-mongering is in full swing.” Notwithstanding this effort, our specialist teams’ work continues to show with real data that climate change is neither catastrophic or man-made.

PRESS RELEASE: February 20, 2018

EF_CPP_Fifth_Supplement_to_Petition_for_Recon_PRESS_RELEASE_021218.pdf

1.  Just Released, new research findings demonstrate that Ten Frequent Climate Alarmists’ Claims have each been Rebutted by true experts in each Field by simply citing the most relevant and credible empirical data.

2.  The new results invalidate 10 very frequent Alarmist Claims in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

3.  If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.

4.  This scientifically illiterate basis for regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth, jobs and national security.

February 20, 2018

On February 9, 2018, The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) submitted a fifth Supplement to their Petition to provide additional new highly relevant and credible information. (See: EF CPP Fifth Supplement to Petition for Recon FINAL020918 ) It relates to variables other than temperature describing the Earth’s Climate System. With each of EPA’s three Lines of Evidence purporting to support their 2009 Endangerment Finding already shown in the CHECC petition and its first 2 Supplements to be invalid, EPA has no proof whatsoever that CO2 has had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures.

The Council’s original Petition (here and First Supplement to Petition (here ) demonstrated that the Endangerment Finding is nothing more than assumptions that have each been disproved by the most relevant empirical evidence from the real world. The original Petition was substantially based on a major peer-reviewed 2016 scientific paper by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D’Aleo (Wallace 2016) that analyzed the best available temperature data sets and “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important tropical and global temperature time series data sets analyzed.” The full text of Wallace 2016 may be found here .

First Supplement to Petition was substantially based on a new April 2017 peer reviewed scientific paper, also from the same authors (Wallace 2017A). Wallace 2017A can be found here Wallace 2017A concluded that once impacts of natural factors such as solar, volcanic and ENSO activity are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

The Second Supplement to the Petition relied on a third new major peer reviewed scientific paper from James Wallace, Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso, published in June 2017 (Wallace 2017B). Wallace 2017B analyzes the GAST data issued by U.S. agencies NASA and NOAA, as well as British group Hadley CRU. (Wallace 2017B can be found here.  In this research report past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, this result was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

The Second Supplement to Petition states: Adjustments that impart an ever-steeper upward trend in the data by removing the natural cyclical temperature patterns present in the data deprive the GAST products from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU of the credibility required for policymaking or climate modeling, particularly when they are relied on to drive trillions of dollars in expenditures.

The invalidation of the adjusted GAST data knocked yet another essential pillar out from under the lines of evidence that are the claimed foundation of the Endangerment Finding. As the Second Supplement to Petition stated: It is therefore inescapable that if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the “basic physical understanding” of climate and the climate models will also be invalid.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data and, the willingness of more scientists to come forward with such new evidence (here. Perhaps recognizing this fact, Climate Alarmists have over time gone from focusing on Global Warming, to Climate Change to simply fear of Carbon. Thus, this research sought to determine the credibility of Ten (10) very frequently cited Climate Alarmists Claims.

Below are Rebuttals to each of these ten typical climate alarmists’ claims. The rebuttal authors are all recognized experts on their topic and each rebuttal demonstrates the claim fallacy by merely citing the most credible empirical data. For a in depth summary of the alarmist claim rebuttal and linkage to the full reports see here.

Claim #1: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_AC - Heat Waves

Claim #2: Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_AC - Hurricanes

Claim #3: Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Tornadoes

Claim #4: Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of droughts and floods.
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Droughts and Floods

Claim #5: Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Wildfires

Claim #6: Global warming is causing snow to disappear
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_CA - Snow

Claim #7: Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both tide gauge and satellite technology
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Sea Level

Claim #8:  Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating due to global warming
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland 123117

Claim #9: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA - Ocean pH

Claim #10: Carbon pollution is a health hazard
For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC - Health

THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIFTH SUPPLEMENT

The invalidation of the three lines of evidence upon which EPA attributes global warming to human GHG emissions breaks the causal link between human GHG emissions and global warming. This in turn necessarily breaks the causal chain between human GHG emissions and the alleged knock-on effects of global warming, such as loss of Arctic ice, increased sea level, and increased heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Nevertheless, these alleged downstream effects are constantly cited to whip up alarm and create demands for ever tighter regulation of GHG emissions involving all fossil fuels, not just coal. EPA explicitly relied on predicted increases in such events to justify the Endangerment Finding. But there is no evidence to support such Alarmist Claims, and copious empirical evidence that refutes them. The enormous cost and essentially limitless scope of the government’s regulatory authority over GHG emissions cannot lawfully rest upon a collection of scary stories that are conclusively disproven by readily available empirical data.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data. It is time for an honest and rigorous scientific re-evaluation of the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. The nation has been taken down a tragically foolish path of pointless GHG/CO2 regulations and wasteful mal-investments to “solve” a problem which does not actually exist. Our leaders must summon the courage to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.

The legal criteria for reconsidering the Endangerment Finding are clearly present in this case. The scientific foundation of the Endangerment Finding has been invalidated. The parade of horrible calamities that the Endangerment Finding predicts and that a vast program of regulation seeks to prevent have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted by empirical data. The Petition for Reconsideration should be granted.

The Council brought its Petition because the Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations threaten, as President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.” But clearly CO2 regulation does not just raise electricity prices, it raises all fossil fuel prices. America can have, and must have, the lowest possible energy costs in order to attain and maintain its energy, economic and national security.

Media Contacts:

Harry W. MacDougald
Caldwell Propst & DeLoach LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
(404) 843-1956
hmacdougald@cpdlawyers.com

Francis Menton
Law Office of Francis Menton
85 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 627-1796
fmenton@manhattancontrarian.com



Feb 18, 2018
How To Change Minds On The Subject Of Climate Hysteria

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

Regular readers here will know that one of the things I do in my semi-retirement is represent a group of scientists who are appalled by what masquerades under the name of “science” in popular discourse about climate change.  Our effort in various venues is to educate as to the ways in which the so-called “scientific consensus” of impending catastrophic global warming is not scientific at all, and is the opposite of science. 

It’s not just that “consensus” is irrelevant to real science, and can frequently be overturned.  It’s that there’s an entire suite of criteria by which the promotion of climate hysteria departs from science and the scientific method:  For example, where is the falsifiable hypothesis?  What is the null hypothesis?  What are that data that, if they emerged, would be conceded to falsify the falsifiable hypothesis?  In lieu of a hypothesis that can be falsified, we find frequent assertions that literally everything—including facts that are the direct opposite of each other—constitutes proof that global warming “is occurring” and will inevitably have catastrophic effects.  One day there is a claim that snow will be a thing of the past (it’s getting warmer!) and the next day a big snow storm is claimed as evidence of the damaging effects of global warming (we told you to expect more extreme weather!).  One day a drought is claimed as evidence of catastrophic effects of global warming, and the next day it’s a flood being claimed as evidence of the same.  Meanwhile, has there been any actual verification of a falsifiable hypothesis—and is it a verification that can be replicated by others?  And, why are critical data being cherry-picked and/or altered to support the “consensus”?

We all learned the fundamentals of the scientific method back in high school, or even junior high school.  Isn’t it obvious to everyone that the antics of climate change alarm promoters are unscientific and anti-scientific?

Unfortunately, as I frequently point out to my colleagues, on important political issues, very few human minds can be changed by mere reason and logic, no matter how ironclad that reason and logic may be.  We may think we are creatures of reason, but that’s only a veneer.  The famous quote is attributed to Jonathan Swift: 

“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”

On the other hand, there are things that can persuade even those who are very difficult to persuade.  Consider, for example, how your views of intermittent “renewable” energy sources as a remedy for climate change might be affected by a tripling—or maybe a quintupling—of your electricity bill.  Then throw in a few power blackouts for good measure.  And finally, let the information seep through that emissions aren’t even going down!  Which brings us back to the case of Germany.

As I noted in this post back in November, as recently as 2015 there was no political party of any significance anywhere in Europe that stood against climate change hysteria and against the huge increases in wind and solar power generation claimed necessary to save us from climate disaster.  Work by Norwegian political scientist Sondre Batstrand, summarized here in the Guardian in October 2015, had concluded that “the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains.” In Germany, as recently as last year, no political party representing a dissenting position on any aspect of the climate “consensus” held a single seat in the Bundestag.  But Germany’s Energiewende ("energy transition"), instituted in 2010, had caused Germany’s consumer electricity prices to skyrocket since the prior national elections in 2013. 

Then, in the September 2017 elections, two parties thought to represent climate skepticism at least to some degree—the FDP (Free Democrats) and AfD (Alliance for Germany)—suddenly won some 24.6% of the seats in the Bundestag.  OK, but exactly how serious are these people in their climate skepticism?  We learn about that from an excellent post today at the site NoTricksZone, titled “Green energy opposition becoming formidable force in Germany.”

It appears that over the past couple of weeks, two young members of the Bundestag, one from the FDP and the other from AfD, made their first speeches in the parliament, and chose the subject of climate.  Videos of their speeches are included at the link, but I won’t embed them here, because they are in German and I assume that few readers could understand them.  However, Pierre Gosselin of NTZ clearly understands the language, and provides translations and paraphrases of some extended excerpts.

From Sandra Weeser of FDP:

In her speech Weeser points out that despite the rapidly growing green energy capacity being installed, the effort to reduce CO2 has failed, and what’s left is an unpredictable power grid that often produces energy when it is not needed (waste energy) and thus costing Germans hundreds of millions annually.  She also accuses the established politicians of ignoring citizens as they ruin Germany’s landscape with wind parks.

“Interestingly it is often Green party voters who we find themselves among wind park protesters. In their daily lives these people are recognizing that what is being sold as green electricity in fact has nothing to do with being green. They are rejecting the industrial turbines in forests."…

Weeser also dismisses claims by the Green Party that wind energy is “the most inexpensive” on the market, asking them directly: “If that is really true, then why do they need subsidies? Why are we paying 25 billion euros annually for their feed-in?”

From Dr. Rainer Kraft of AfD:

Kraft slams the government’s climate-protection approach of spending “15 euros to avoid 1 euro of damage” as a policy one would expect from “a fool.” Adding: “there just couldn’t be less scientific understanding than that.” Echoing Donald Trump’s ideas on international treaties, Kraft also sees them as being ruinous to German industry, and that the ultimate target of climate protection is to establish “an eco-socialist centrally-planned economy” and that climate protection is the “instrument” to bring it about.  He then labeled the Greens’ energy policy as “eco-populist voodoo.”

Gosselin concludes:

[E]xpect the traditional established parties to continue seeing the unheard of erosion among their disenchanted voter bases. Never has postwar Germany seen a political shift on such a massive scale… Though 25% may not sound impressive, it is amazing when one considers that only a decade ago there was virtually universal parliamentary support for green energies. Those days are over.  And now as the failure of the Energiewende becomes ever more glaring, reaching the political tipping point on the issue of the Energiewende is just a question of a few more years.

By the way, according to this post on Clean Energy Wire on January 5, Germany got the percent of its electricity from “renewables” all the way up to 36.1% in 2017, from about 32.3% in 2016.  Oh, but its total CO2 emissions actually increased.

[T]he country’s total emissions stagnated for the third year in a row, because more oil and gas were used in transport, heating and industry…

Unfortunately, changing minds in Germany has required the people to act as guinea pigs for a decade or so in the grand experiment in “eco-populist voodoo.” The same method will work equally well in the U.S.  Sadly, I appear to live in one of the places whose residents are among the designated guinea pigs.



Jan 22, 2018
In Memory of John Coleman

By Joseph D’Aleo

During the latter stages of co-authoring a book honoring the Weather Channel Pioneers (coming soon), John Coleman sadly passed away January 20th at age 83 at his home in Las Vegas surrounded by friends and family.  John Coleman retired in 2014 after nearly 61 years in weather broadcasting.

John learned to love weather and nature from his dad, a college professor who had been raised on a farm in Alpine, Texas. John never stopped learning, combining self and college classroom study, observation, and knowledge gained from all the people he worked with.

image

I had the profound privilege to work closely with him at Good Morning America and then at the cable TV Weather Channel.  For GMA, John often worked all through the night, helping to put together a quality product for the viewers including a minute feature with the goals of informing and educating. He believed the more the viewers understood, the more capable they would be of utilizing the weather to their benefit.

The seeds of ‘The Weather Channel’ was a dream I first heard about in 1980 that became more and more real in the stillness of the night as while we worked together at Good Morning America in 1980 and 1981.  I cherish the memory of long discussions and the promise of a mission that seemed, at times impossible. But John was driven to see his dream happen.

Some days he would board a plane after the shows to see a venture capitalist about funding his idea, returning in the evening, showering, changing clothes and heading back to work. His sleep was often a nap on the plane and maybe a half hour at his desk. Talk about dedication.

His dream of a national service with localized weather information was realized with The Weather Channel in 1982 when Frank Batten at Landmark and John came to an agreement on a cable weather service. John worked tirelessly on helping us others hire the right staff and detailing the product and programming.

image

Many of the Weather Channel Pioneers came to The Weather Channel because of John. He was a TV weather rock star. He inspired and coached them in those hard early days as we all were feeling our way in a business for which there was no blueprint or precedent. He wondered whether he was too hard at times on his staff, which he loved dearly. But he felt it was his obligation to make sure they knew what we had to do differently being everyone’s local weather source.

John and many of the original pioneers chronicle how the Weather Channel evolved in this upcoming book.  Those founding members of The Weather Channel had a reunion in 2012 in Atlanta and we were so pleased John celebrated with us there.

So many of our Pioneers responded to his sudden death with expressions of great sadness and recognition of him as a visionary who changed TV weather forever (first day responses).

His family honored his wishes to have no services but to issue a eulogy on his life. Here is an excerpt:

Pioneer, scientist, and meteorologist are all words that were John Coleman. Husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather, friend, mentor were the more important words that defined him.

Coleman’s first job in broadcasting was during his time as a high school student. He hosted a radio show on WCIL in Carbondale Illinois. In 1953, while he was a student at the University of Illinois he got his first TV job at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois doing the early evening weather forecast and hosting a local bandstand show called “At The Hop.” After receiving his degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA’s sister station in Peoria, Illinois. Over his career, Coleman was meteorologist in Omaha and Milwaukee and then for 20 years he was the weather anchor for the ABC affiliate WLS-TV in Chicago.

During his time at WLS his pioneering in the broadcast world accelerated. He and his team at WLS developed a format that was coined “happy talk news” where the on-air personalities interacted with each other, a format used frequently today. In 1972, Coleman and his stage crew at WLS-TV created the first chroma key (green screen) weather map, a format used almost universally in TV weather forecasts today.

In 1975 Coleman became the original meteorologist when ABC launched its new morning show, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program.

In the early 1980’s, John had a vision for 24-hour TV weather which he took from concept to reality in 1981 and which he named “The Weather Channel.” He served as its first CEO and President when The Weather Channel launched in 1982. It was during this time, he was honored by the AMS for “Outstanding Service by a Broadcast Meteorologist.”

After his time at The Weather Channel, Coleman returned to local TV in New York, Chicago, Palm Springs and then to KUSI in San Diego, where he was chief meteorologist for 20 happy years. John loved forecasting the “gorgeous” San Diego weather and it was the perfect end to an outstanding 61-year professional career.

During his time in San Diego and into his retirement, John was committed and passionate in his effort to educate the public about the false science behind claims of global warming. He spoke at conventions, narrated videos, wrote a popular blog, and never missed an opportunity to present the science debunking the climate change movement. His blog can be found at https://johncolemanblog.com/ . Coleman was also a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks promoting solutions to social and economic problems.

John was an energetic and passionate man about all he loved, including cards, especially poker. He loved life and was a lifelong learner. He will be remembered as a kind, funny, intelligent man who loved his profession, science and his family and friends. His mantra to his family members came from one of his favorite artist’s songs, Nat King Cole’s Nature Boy, “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.”

------

John I wish we could tell you again how much we appreciate what you did for all of us who joined you on your impossible dream ride.

As Winston Churchill said “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” John, you gave so much to give your dream life.

From the Man of La Mancha song “Impossible Dream” these excerpted lyrics apply.

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

And I know if I’ll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I’m laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star

Your heart should lie peaceful and calm. The world is a better place because you strove with your last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable star.



Page 1 of 622 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »